He wont win the nomination. He wont win any primaries. But for Ron Pauls quixotic bid for the White House, its Mission Accomplished.

In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though theyll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.

Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and its slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If its possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. Markos too brands himself a libertarian Democrat, though hes never read Hayek and supports big government social programs.

Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertsons 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.

Not every losing single-issue candidate succeeds like this. Immigration-restrictionists still lack an outlet in the GOP, thanks to Tom Tancredos embarrassing tone-deafness as a candidate. Sam Brownbacks campaign had hoped to galvanize single-issue pro-lifers, but was hobbled by his dry persona. Duncan Hunter looks mostly like a campaign for Secretary of Defense.

Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here? His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.

To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect theyll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.

Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Pauls small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy, and even John McCain has lately made a thing of ripping the military-industrial complex, but there is no way  I repeat NO WAY  they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe. Even if they arent the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.

As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, heres how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists. Take a look at Andrew Sullivans writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form; far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays dont get stoned to death.

The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you.

If theyre serious about defending their ideals and seeing to it that libertarianism survives more than a generation in actual practice, I dont see any reason why libertarians couldnt embrace a more conservative positioning on national security.

I find the comparison to Pat Robertson's campaign interesting. That campaign was responsible for bringing a lot of politically active Christians into the GOP. Will Ron's campaign do the same for limited government conservatives? While I do not support his campaign this election cycle, the long term political impact of the movenevt he has inspired is of intense interest to me.

I wish your analysis were correct and Ron Paul would draw attention to libertarian principles but his attention has been mainly fueled by his anti-war message. Far more Democrats than libertarians are coming to his support.

In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party.

Yeah, but that profile isn't complimentary. His campaign has done more damage to libertarianism than anything else by connecting it with surrendering in the WOT and appeasement of Islamists rather than what that political movement should be known for -- limited gov't advocacy.

7
posted on 11/26/2007 2:01:37 PM PST
by Mr. Mojo
(“Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss.")

It’s of interest to me as well. The problem as I see it is this. Those that agree with Paul’s decent views stand a very good chance of being blackballed as simply another fellow traveler of Paul.

Paul presidential campaign has done nothing for true conservatives as far as I am concerned. No, instead he has given the press grounds to dismiss those that support smaller government, less taxation and on and on...

10
posted on 11/26/2007 2:02:43 PM PST
by DoughtyOne
(California, where the death penalty is reserved for wholesome values. SB 777)

I think the one thing that Ron Paul running will guarantee is a Democratic victory. Much like Ralph Nadar’s running guaranteed Bush’s election by drawing off votes from then vice-president Al whats his name.

"His campaign has done more damage to libertarianism than anything else by connecting it with surrendering in the WOT and appeasement of Islamists rather than what that political movement should be known for -- limited gov't advocacy."

That has been my concern ever since it was announced that he was thinking of running for President. At first, I ignored the campaign for that very reason. Lately, I have been curious as to the make up of the movement he is attracting, so I did some research. Contrary to the standard assumption on this site that most of his support comes from the antiwar left, I have found that he draws a lot of support from those who believe that the GOP has betrayed the cause of limited government. Financially, he seems to be getting some support from the investment community, particularly the hard money investors. I have been desperately looking for a sign that the limited government movement still has some life within the GOP. The story of the Ron Paul campaign is going to be in what becomes of the movement he inspired after the campaign is over.

14
posted on 11/26/2007 2:15:47 PM PST
by rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)

It starts out observing that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee - so don’t go into how bad it would be if he is.
The point of the article is that he’s getting rousing the libertarian subset of the Republican party - and that it’s a force to be reconed with.

Ron Paul won’t be the nominee. We know that. Nobody seriously contends he will.
HOWEVER, he’s making it clear that there’s a whole lotta Republicans that agree with him on a lot of issues, and while he won’t “win” by being the nominee (much less POTUS), he has already “won” by garnering lots of support and not being easily dismissed.

There’s a lot of us who, while perhaps put off by some of his comments, agree with him on a LOT of points which other contenders are missing.
Don’t underestimate the influence of the libertarian branch of the Republican party; a successful candidate won’t.

16
posted on 11/26/2007 2:17:47 PM PST
by ctdonath2
(The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)

... imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe.

We were defending ourselves in Bosnia? We were defending ourselves in Somalia? Are we defending ourselves in Djibouti, Ghana? Or in the Philipines, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Uganda, Denmark, Cyprus, Germany, Honduras, and Spain?

Ron Paul is rousing the moonbat subset of the Republican party. True constitutionalist as well as true conservatives think his stances are bunk. Republicans fund him in the hopes he runs as a 3rd party candidate and in doing so pulls votes from the Democrats- not because his message “resonates.” He’s given libertarianism a black-eye.

20
posted on 11/26/2007 2:29:51 PM PST
by Prime Rib Minister
(Don't know who I will vote for, but I know it won't be Fred)

Paul presidential campaign has done nothing for true conservatives as far as I am concerned. No, instead he has given the press grounds to dismiss those that support smaller government, less taxation and on and on...

Do you seriously think that the press NEEDS any grounds to dismiss those that support smaller government, less taxation, and so on?

Paul's presidential campaign has done nothing for true conservatives as far as I am concerned. No, instead he has given the press grounds to dismiss those that support smaller government, less taxation and on and on...

I agree. Ron's vehement anti-war message simply strengthens Democrats, who flock to 'support' him but who, in reality, are hoping to fracture the already-weakened Republican party. The Libertarian small-government message is practically invisible with Ron Paul ranting about Iraq. His suggestions that there is a possibility of 'the government' being involved in the death and destruction of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, simply mark Ron Paul and his libertarianism as part of a 'kook fringe', which benefits no one, least if all, political conservatism.

The concept that Paul has 'won' by losing is fantasy. He hasn't brought libertarian values to the GOP, but simply made himself appear a political lightweight and his libertarianism to be more about isolationism (under the anti-war banner) than a responsible approach to the threat from Islamic fanatics.

Ron Paul has his attributes but he is far from being a libertarian missionary, imparting libertarian 'values' to the heathen GOP minions, as the lead article tries to make us believe. He is a marginal candidate, soon to be blown away in the primary voting and quickly forgotten as the real presidential campaign begins.

Judging by the latest FR poll results, it’s the contest between Hunter and Thompson that’s splitting the Republican party.

And does it even occur to you to ask WHY the Republican party is already weakened? Do you think it might have something to do with the party’s adoption of the “Clinton Doctrine” of “humanitarian warfare?”

Because I am absolutely disgusted by the GOP's betrayal of the cause of limited government and am desperately looking for a Goldwater type of movement to emerge that will push that cause back to the forefront. Because of his views on the nature of the Islamic threat, I am not supporting his candidacy. That does not mean that I am not interested in what becomes of the movement he has inspired. We really need to stop looking at politics in the short sighted fashion of who is going to win the next election and examine what kind of movement a person can inspire over the long haul. Ron Paul definitely has some warts, but it might very well be the case that the movement which he has inspired may be a political factor long after he is no longer on the political scene. If that turns out to be so, then we need to engage in dialog with his supporters over issues of disagreement. the childish name calling that has substituted for such discussion until now is more worthy of DU or KOS than FR. (At least I wish such were the case)

30
posted on 11/26/2007 2:37:15 PM PST
by rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)

I think that this is a case of wishful thinking. It is clear form visiting a number of the blogs run by his supporters, or by viewing the numerous YouTube videos which support him, that a large segment of his support comes from people who take the cause of limited government seriously and feel betrayed by the leadership of both parties. In fact, I have found a few sites when the posters supported him IN SPITE OF his stand on the WOT. He certainly gets a lot of support from the hard money investors based on his call for a sound currency.

38
posted on 11/26/2007 2:51:46 PM PST
by rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)

Judging by the latest FR poll results, its the contest between Hunter and Thompson thats splitting the Republican party.

Duncan Hunter is a non-starter. Rasmussen shows him with less than 1% which is hardly a threat to Thompson, who is at 13% (tied with Romney).

And does it even occur to you to ask WHY the Republican party is already weakened? Do you think it might have something to do with the partys adoption of the Clinton Doctrine of humanitarian warfare?

I think it has to do with the free-spending Republican congress - that was defeated in 2006 - (we showed them) and the stupid stands on illegal immigration taken by the Bush administration and some Republican congressional Representatives and Senators last summer. The liberalism of Rudy Giuliani, the Republican leader in the GOP presidential nomination 'horse race', is also a dividing factor.

However, I believe that the majority of conservatives will bind together to support and vote for the Republican candidate that is selected via primary to run against the putative Democrat nominee, Marxist Hillary Clinton, who makes Giuliani's 'liberal' positions on 'cultural issues' look a lot less scary compared to her determined socialist plans for this country. I refuse to act like a petulant whiner and give up my right to vote next November because the GOP nominee isn't exactly to my liking. The '08 presidential election is too important for that kind of childishness and frivolous candidates like Ron Paul with his 'get out of Iraq' message and flirtation with 9/11 'government conspiracy' theories simply waste everyone's time.

"It is the Democrat liberaltarians coming to support him in greater numbers than even the Neo-Nazis."

Actually, the single most prominent source of organized support he gets seems to come from the rank and file members of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which represents the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

42
posted on 11/26/2007 2:58:12 PM PST
by rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)

Actually it's having the opposite effect. Paul has exposed the Democrats' anti-war hypocrisy, and in turn most of the independents who voted for the Democrats in the mid-terms are angry and disappointed. They're now backing Paul.

The extreme left - the Code Pinkers, etc. are still behind Hillary & Obama. They support things like using our military for "peaceful" purposes, such as intervening in Darfur. Paul opposes this, and whatever amount of leftists that are supporting Paul are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find out he's not a pacifist.

who flock to 'support' him but who, in reality, are hoping to fracture the already-weakened Republican party.

The Republican Party is fractured because it gave the middle finger to fiscal conservatives & right-leaning populists for six years. It is already weak because people believe in fighting wars and getting them over with rather than trying to spread "democracy" to a bunch of heathens. Democrats had nothing to do with it.

The Libertarian small-government message is practically invisible with Ron Paul ranting about Iraq.

Dr. Paul has outlined his policies on dozens of other issues. The Iraq war is prominent because of the spending on it. Perhaps you should visit his online library, rather than getting the spin from the establishment who highlights his foreign policy views to make him seem like a kook.

His suggestions that there is a possibility of 'the government' being involved in the death and destruction of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, simply mark Ron Paul and his libertarianism as part of a 'kook fringe'

“Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 76%, Huckabee by 65%, Giuliani by 74%, and Thompson by 73%. Those numbers reflect a six-point gain for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged from a month ago.

McCains numbers, while still weak, have improved over the past month. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 61% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 38% have an unfavorable view. A month ago, just 53% offered a positive assessment of the man once presumed to be the GOP frontrunner.

That will change considerably as more people hear more about cut and run. The more any Republican or any real American hear what he has to say the more they will realize how anti-American he is. Iowa is too pro America to ever vote for a white flag waving anti-American who wants to lose the WOT like cut and run.

Perot did not have a clear ideology. The author points out how Christian conservatives went on to assume a prominent role within the GOP after cutting their political teeth on the Pat Robertson campaign. Robertson himself did not become a political factor, but the movement that came about in support of him did. This is a reasonable model for Ron Paul supporters, who support limited government, to follow. The first sign on such a thing taking shape would be if the Republican Liberty Caucus experiences an influx of new blood following the elections.

50
posted on 11/26/2007 3:18:00 PM PST
by rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.